COLLECTION LINK

Set #7 has;
Grass #5 - 2048x2048 - Leafy ground cover.
Ground #2 - 2048x2048 - Flattened dead grass, rock, and dirt patches.
Skeleton Leaf #1 - 4096x4096 - Color and alpha map included in one zip. ( 9mb )
Rusted (Metal) #3 - 2048x2048 - Rust & brass.
Sandstone #2 - 1024x1024 - Reddish with weathering.

All saved in high quality compressed jpg format.

All are free to use in any commercial and/or non-commercial works.

There are also about 30 previously uploaded textures available for download. Most are 2048x2048, some 1024x1024, all free.

Enjoy and thanks! (more to come)

Thanks AS... 

Attached Link: http://www10.sharecg.com/search/index.php?q=ysvry

Thanks!

awsumness!

Man that's really rightous of you to share like this!!! Thanks Bunches!!!

Great textures thanks for sharing them.

Now a question about seamless... what makes these texturs seamless? The dimensions used to create them? or is it if you join one end to another they will look seamless?

Is there a special program or technique used to make sure that the texture is seamless?

So many questions :)

Seamless - For any pattern that may be repeated on a 3D mesh, having it semaless is just an absolute standard. Since an image texture can be "scaled" up or down upon a mesh, meaning have it repeat itself multiple times acrosss the surface of a mesh, the top of the image texture must be able to touch the bottom without any noticable, visual interruptions. Same goes for the sides touching one another.

To do this, you would use a 2D image editor, I would assume the free ones can do it as well as Say Photoshop or PSP, you "offset" the image, which basically puts the opposite edges together for you, so you can then blend those edges together with normally a "clone stamp: kind of tool. Or, with Photoshop you can also use the "heal" tool.

Here are a couple simple tutorials that explain it better;
http://blog.paranoidferret.com/?p=14
http://www.cadtutor.net/dd/photo/seamless/seamless.html

Oh so you can do it in PhotoShop too?  I never knew that.  Thought it was just PaintShop had that feature.

So there are tutorials for doing it in PhotoShop. Good, thanks.

Yeah, all I have ever used is Photoshop. This is such a standard process, I would believe almost any 2D editor would have some sort of process to get you started on it.

Great info thanks.  I have some photos I've taken that I'd like to turn into textures.  I'll give these tutorials a try.

Oh one more thing.  Any reason doing 1024x1024 vs 2048 x 2048? or is it sometimes the source is not of high quality to warrant 2048x2048?

That is just another industry standard, don't know how it got started, but normally you want to work in what is referred to as "the power of two", and that means image sizes of;

128x128
256x256
512x512
1024x1024
2048x2048
4096x4096

Some 3D programs are built around this standard, and even though you can easily still use any size image texture, the program may interoplate (resize) an image texture that could originally be say 4000x4000 to 4096x4096, and that could take away from the overall quality or detail in the image texture. Although this would be very slight.

Image textures larger than 4096 aren't usually needed and they are a huge drain on system memory. Even in films, I've only heard once of a 8192x8192 image texture being used. That was for a close-up of a decapitation in Underworld:Evolution.

Also, another fyi - another way of referring to how large an image is, is by calling it 1K, 2K, 4K, or 8K. Which means that that width is 1024, 2048, 4096 or 8192 pixels wide. In image textures that are used in rendering, the height and width should be the same, yet with an image that is a finished render those terms might only refer to the width of the image, since they may be in various aspect ratios (i.e.; 4:3 pan&scan, 16:9 Widescreen, etc)

Lol, also in a more direct answer to your question;

**Any reason doing 1024x1024 vs 2048 x 2048? or is it sometimes the source is not of high quality to warrant 2048x2048?
**If you can originally produce a larger texture (2048) that would always be better. If you don't need something that large, it can always be resized down before use.

A couple of reasons for larger dimension textures;

1 - Even though you can scale an image to repeat more times across a meshes surface, you can usually only do this so much before the pattern of the texture shows itself off to the viewers eye, and looks unrealistic. With a larger sized image, you don't need to have it repeat as much, and the quality, realism is easier to pull of..

2 - If the image texture is on an object that is close to the 3D camera, then you have to start worrying about the image texture appearing pixelated. I run into this all the time when using an image texture on the ground, if the camera is not very high up, the image texture nearest the camera can start to look "blocky". This also becomes even more apparent if/when you render out larger, so you can print it out on your home printer, or also professionally printed.

Also if you have a model in Bryce that's using a 2048 image on part of it, and you zip the .obp file up, it'll be rather large, (i.e. bloomin' massive) yet if you reduce the size of the image used you won't see the difference on the model but when you zip it up it's a lot less that half the size... can't remember exactly but it was a LOT less than half.

Not sure if that applies to say... a decent roof texture on a building, since that will be seen in more detail - depending on where you have the camera.  If you're looking at a bird on the roof, then the roof texture will need to be good, if it's one house among a whole town then it probably doesn't.